On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:15:34PM +0800, Jeff Chang wrote:
+++ b/sound/soc/codecs/mt6660.c @@ -0,0 +1,653 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/*
- Copyright (c) 2019 MediaTek Inc.
- */
Please make the entire comment a C++ one so things look more intentional.
- { MT6660_REG_DEVID, 2},
- { MT6660_REG_TDM_CFG3, 2},
- { MT6660_REG_HCLIP_CTRL, 2},
- { MT6660_REG_DA_GAIN, 2},
Missing space before the } (the same thing happens in some of the other tables).
+static int mt6660_component_get_volsw(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)+{
- struct snd_soc_component *component =
snd_soc_kcontrol_component(kcontrol);- struct mt6660_chip *chip = (struct mt6660_chip *)
snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);- int ret = -EINVAL;
- if (!strcmp(kcontrol->id.name, "Chip_Rev")) {
Why would this be used on a different control?
- SOC_SINGLE_EXT("BoostMode", MT6660_REG_BST_CTRL, 0, 3, 0,
snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),
Boost Mode. You've also got a lot of these controls that are _EXT but you then just use standard operations so it's not clear why you're using _EXT.
- SOC_SINGLE_EXT("audio input selection", MT6660_REG_DATAO_SEL, 6, 3, 0,
snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),
Audio Input Selection, but this looks like it should be a DAPM control if it's controlling audio routing. A simple numerical setting definitely doesn't seem like the right thing.
- SOC_SINGLE_EXT("AUD LOOP BACK Switch", MT6660_REG_PATH_BYPASS, 4, 1, 0,
snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),
This sounds like it should be a DAPM thing too.
+static int mt6660_component_probe(struct snd_soc_component *component) +{
- struct mt6660_chip *chip = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
- int ret = 0;
- dev_info(component->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
dev_dbg() at most but probably better to remove this and the other similar dev_info()s.
+static inline int _mt6660_chip_id_check(struct mt6660_chip *chip) +{
- u8 id[2] = {0};
- int ret = 0;
- ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(chip->i2c, MT6660_REG_DEVID, 2, id);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- ret = (id[0] << 8) + id[1];
- ret &= 0x0ff0;
- if (ret != 0x00e0 && ret != 0x01e0)
return -ENODEV;
It'd be better to print an error message saying we don't recognize the device to help people doing debugging.
- if (of_property_read_u32(np, "rt,init_setting_num", &val)) {
dev_info(dev, "no init setting\n");chip->plat_data.init_setting_num = 0;
You should be adding a DT binding document for any new DT bindings.